Submit a preprint


Integrating biodiversity assessments into local conservation planning: the importance of assessing suitable data sourcesuse asterix (*) to get italics
Thibaut Ferraille, Christian Kerbiriou, Charlotte Bigard, Fabien Claireau, John D. ThompsonPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
<p>Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of land-use planning is a fundamental tool to minimize environmental impacts of artificialization. In this context, Systematic Conservation Planning (SCP) tools based on Species Distribution Models (SDM) are frequently used for the elaboration of spatially exhaustive biodiversity diagnostics. Despite the paradigm of “garbage in - garbage out” that emphasises the importance of testing the suitability of data for SDM and priority conservation areas, the assessment of database sources remains relatively rare. In addition, the lack of practical recommendations for the use of open-access databases by SEA stakeholders remains a problem. The aim of this study is to explore the quality of data sources that can be used in SEA to assess priority conservation areas in SEA. The study used data for nine taxonomic groups (commonly used in inventories for environmental impact assessment) and three databases available to SEA stakeholders. Three local administrative entities in very different socio-ecological contexts were used to examine three main issues : (i) the suitability of local versus regional or country databases for assessing conservation priorities, (ii) differences among taxonomic groups or territories in terms of the suitability of databases, (iii) the importance of the quality of databases for the application of SDM to assess priority conservation areas. Our study provides several clear messages for potential users of open-access databases. First, the need for prudence in the interpretation of biodiversity maps. Second, the collection of individual databases at the country scale is necessary to complete local data and ensure the suitability of SDM in a local context. Third, a data driven approach can lead to the use of notably different species communities to identify priority conservation areas when compared to the community in the original database. Finally, we propose a workflow to guide SEA stakeholders through the process of data rationalization and use in conservation planning.</p>,,,,, https://data.biodiversite-bretagne.frYou should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https:// should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https:// should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
Data-driven approach, Species Distribution Models (SDM), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Systematic Conservation Planning (SCP)
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Biodiversity, Conservation biology, Species distributions, Terrestrial ecology
Simon Tarabon,, Heini Kujala,, Amy L. Whitehead,, Ayesha I. T. Tulloch, /, David J. Baker,, Sami Domisch,, Wilfried Thuiller suggested: Louise O'Connor <>, Joaquín Hortal suggested: I can't review this preprint at this time. As alternative reviewers I may suggest the following alternative reviewers:, Joaquín Hortal suggested: Alberto Jiménez Valverde <>, Joaquín Hortal suggested: David Sánchez Fernández <>, Joaquín Hortal suggested: Luis R. Pertierra <>, Joaquín Hortal suggested: Geiziane Tessarolo <>, Joaquín Hortal suggested: Alejandra Zarzo <>, Joaquín Hortal suggested: I hope this helps, Alberto Jiménez-Valverde [] suggested: Jorge M. Lobo ( No need for them to be recommenders of PCIEcology. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
e.g. John Doe []
2023-05-11 09:41:05
Nicolas Schtickzelle